The discussion of what is and isn't ok to put into art made me think of the right to free speech. In America, you have the right to say what you want but it doesn't mean you should say whatever you want. The same can be said for creating art. People should have the right to make art of what they want but it doesn't mean that they should make it

DrRockor:The discussion of what is and isn't ok to put into art made me think of the right to free speech. In America, you have the right to say what you want but it doesn't mean you should say whatever you want. The same can be said for creating art. People should have the right to make art of what they want but it doesn't mean that they should make it

And if you do say something, people can reply however. Basically anything that can be said because of free speech can be refuted with free speech.

The controversy surrounding "Six Days in Fallujah" was no because the developers decided interview radical Iraqi insurgents for the game (a rumor that is not only unfounded but also frankly ludicrous). But because of the game's plot closely followed the story of a real life platoon that fought in the Second Battle of Fallujah, some people (the FOX News crowd mostly) felt that the game was glorifying violence and trying to make money out of a real life tragedy. They thought that it was "too soon" to make a game out of war, that video games are just a childish waste of time.

"Six Days in Fallujah" was supposed to be a realistic depiction of war, not a moronic CoD/BF clone. Konamy decided to pull the plug just before the games release because they didn't have the balls to step up and defend the game they believed in.

6DF still cant get a publisher and ironically games like CoD and BF that are nothing more than lazy corporate cash grabs that present a glorified, simplistic image of war and violence not only get published on yearly basis are also the core product of the AAA industry.

Video games are not toys. They are a valid form of art and should treated like one. Video games can tackle any subject (sometimes even more successfully than films or literature) and should not be subjects of censorship based only on the facts that they are games.

i don't think murder is an inherently evil thing. certainly it should be avoided, and in a perfect world there would be none. but... it's hard explain, but i think it's worth pointing out that while most games today are about killing people, i can't think any titles where that objective isn't specifically to kill "bad" people.i don't think you can ask the question just in terms of "is killing bad in this game bad", but rather "WHY are you killing in game?"in most games, you're never the one who initiates hostility first. certainly there are games where you do. assassination games like assassin's creed or hitman.

For a lighter (almost Adam Westish) look at Batman look into Batman: The Brave and the Bold on Cartoon Network. The series finale even ended by saying that things don't always have to be gritty and dark. Oh, and Jeff Bennett's Joker is a nice alternative to Mark Hamill (not that I don't love his version too)

Whoa, they made Schrodinger's human? How very Dada (I'm probably missusing that term)Somebody get Mike a taser or something. Or at least set up some kind of dead-man-switch to twitter so people know when to start avenging his death.You know why Leonard Nimoy's ears are so big don't you? Because the atmosphere on Vulcan is thinner, and he needs them to magnify the sound waves.

The Deus Ex games I think do a very good job of allowing the possibility of continuing the gameplay without the death of people. The first one was alot harder at times, but with Human Revolution I allowed myself (as Adam Jensen) to kill when it felt right in the context of opponents taking lives in the immediate environment, but if you make the decision to not kill, I felt the mechanics supported such a playthrough. (For reference, I killed people twice; both times in Hengsha funnily enough. I'll be vague, but the first time during Adam's first time there, when Belltower arrive at the hotel, the second time when you first *land* the second time you go to Hengsha.)

What if Mike's future murderer is listening to these podcasts?

The artworld (or community) can't agree on alot of things, like what makes art art. Personally, I think art should sometimes shock or change perceptions, but that doesn't mean ALL art should do that.

It's not a restriction of freedom of speech to allow an insensitive product to exist. The existence of the product isn't stopping anyone disagreeing with how it handles its subject matter. In fact allowing something to handle something in a bad way is a way of allowing us to understand what is and isn't acceptable and why. It also helps to break taboos and increase social progressiveness. To deny the product release is a heinous restriction of free speech and only serves to push back society dealing with it's problems. The idea that some topics are untouchable to certain people because they are somehow unworthy is ridiculous. People will never become more educated or more able to deal with these topics if they're denied from talking and learning about them.

It's not a restriction of freedom of speech to allow an insensitive product to exist. The existence of the product isn't stopping anyone disagreeing with how it handles its subject matter. In fact allowing something to handle something in a bad way is a way of allowing us to understand what is and isn't acceptable and why. It also helps to break taboos and increase social progressiveness. To deny the product release is a heinous restriction of free speech and only serves to push back society dealing with it's problems. The idea that some topics are untouchable to certain people because they are somehow unworthy is ridiculous. People will never become more educated or more able to deal with these topics if they're denied from talking and learning about them.

This is fair, up to a point. The place where that justification potentially falls apart is that certain ways of talking actively work against understanding or adjustment. If we just take slavery or the Holocaust as examples again, we have to be willing to accept that the use of either subject as a vehicle for entertainment or education necessarily has to open it up to misuse as well. Since artistic merit is almost entirely subjective, we're not in a position to distinguish between what's worth it and what isn't. I'm speaking, of course, of us as a society; every individual should feel absolutely free to decide whether something is or isn't capital-A Art and to say so as loudly as they like.

Naturally (for me, at least), given the assumption that people can say whatever they want, the next logical question is whether or not they should say what they want to say. There the fundamental question isn't one of rights; it's one of ethics, or at least responsibilty. My purpose in asking the team whether or not truth exists outside of circumstance or perspective was merely to determine what we individually meant by the statement, "This is wrong."

Not being allowed to say something or create a piece of art or write a book because its not politically correct is just a nice way of saying censoring anything the majority doesn't agree with. In Sweden this is rampant, and you can't critize anything that is "generally accepted" without getting beat with the hate-speech bat. Of course you can tell someone they are being offensive and shouldn't do that thing, but you can never say they can't or arent allowed to.

I think one area we need to look at is The general pulbic. One person on there own can form an opinon about something, is it good, bad or in the middle thats great the problem becomes when you have more people adding there voices to the debate then all the moderat opinions are drowned out and you have to be right or wrong. In the first men in black tommy lee jones said "a person is smart, people a dumb panicy animals" and he's right in a crown peoples IQ drops and they become less and less able to accept new a challenging ideas so that also has to be a consideration that maybe the genral pulbic are just ready to accept what you are trying to tell them. But I do agree that some topics are just not acceptable to shown, for example we all can agree that a child should not be shown a film of someone being raped and murdered, but that is not an absolute truth, that is a truth of our time. And one of the greatest truths of our time is the mob mentality is still on full force and unless you understand that and give you piece of art the right context it will be torn apart by the mob.

[The]Rock:On a more serious note, what's the name of that exhibit with the gun on the timer?

From what I could gather, it's actually the plot of a play, "The Potato Creek Death Chair". For all the time I spent with Google, I could not find a single trace of a real art exhibit with this premise. And it's definitely not an exhibit in France, that much is for sure. France is not as gun friendly as the US, and had there been even a hint of such an exhibit, you can bet it would've been all over the news.

Greatly enjoyed this podcast, especially the ethical discussion about good versus evil, and the difference between universal absolutism, personal beliefs and objective truth.

Video games are not toys. They are a valid form of art and should treated like one. Video games can tackle any subject (sometimes even more successfully than films or literature) and should not be subjects of censorship based only on the facts that they are games.[/quote]

my frined here comes the CHESNUT! - videogames are toys AND art. thats a sad/ or maybe awesome fact because it opens freedoms that arent open to other arts BUT it also closes certain venues - still just means u should just be able to make more of what u got.